"Men With Boobs"

[serria]

I was reading a fantasy trilogy, and was reminded about how much the genre apparently struggles with women. The first book was an impulsive purchase at the bookstore, because I liked the cover artthought the description looked interesting. And I enjoyed it, more or less - not the greatest thing I've read, but relatively entertaining. The story was about a who boy gets trained as an assassin, and his adventures thereafter. Two other characters include his somewhat dry female love interest (kind of in the ballpark of stereotypical damsel in distress, not particularly captivating character to me) and another female character who is also an assassin. This character, though has a bit of a femme fatale entrance and follows kind of an "evil badass woman" trope throughout the second book, was still kind of interesting. I enjoyed a lot of her scenes, at any rate.

Anyway, I finished the second book, and there was an interview included at the end of it. One of the questions was about the whole "strong female character" thing, and the author (who is a man) gives quite a rant. He feels, apparently, that most "strong female characters" in fantasy are really just "men with boobs" but he is very excited about the direction his female assassin character is taking in the third book. He feels his portrayal is, I guess, very true to femininity and rounds out the character, etc.

So what happens in the third book? The female assassin falls in love with the male protagonist and spends the majority of the book crying and being emotional. As, you know, women do. :P

Fantasy and science fiction are my favorite genres, but I wonder if they tend to be more sexist than other genres. For the record, I don't think a female character falling in love with a male protagonist is sexist, nor is a previously cold character suddenly becoming emotional. But juxtaposed with the mindset of the author, that any "fighting female" character who isn't emotional or in love is a "man with boobs" - I think there's a reality here with how many female characters are portrayed.

I brought this up because I am writing a fantasy story which stars a female warrior. She has a female love interest. More than that, the leading male character is the one who has to be saved. I wasn't thinking about social issues or anything when I wrote this, but that's how it turned out. It was an unintentional subversion of gender roles. Of course, I am female myself, but I wonder if my protagonist is a "man with boobs." She is certainly not demure, emotional, or romantic. This accusation, though not (yet) directed at me, bothered me because my protagonist is really not at all defined by her female gender - by fantasy genre cliches, she should just be swapped into a male character. When I started overthinking it, I was even beating myself up over having a lesbian romance - does that (unintentionally) mean that she is taking the "male" role? Does that mean she is a "butch lesbian" (she's not, she's bisexual)? Is my story suddenly about gender roles when I never wanted it to be? What if I make her love interest male, is that better or worse? What if I have no love interest - does that also make a statement about a "masculine" female character?

Blah. I hate the phrase "men with boobs." I also hate the phrase "strong female characters." Like, what do they even mean!

Comments

[sarillia]

I think the thing that the "men with boobs" complaint was originally trying to address was that femininity is looked down on. Women are now often allowed to do things that are considered traditionally masculine, but feminine things are still considered lesser. See how women have come to wear pants all the time over the last several decades but men still can't wear skirts because that's girly and thus degrading.

So now there's a problem with writing female characters. If you write them as more traditionally feminine, you get misogynists looking down on them, but now you will also get a certain brand of feminist disparaging them too because the writer is obviously basing the character on stereotypes (insert an eyeroll here, if you please). So often the only female characters who are allowed to be considered "strong female characters" are the ones who act more traditionally masculine because they're defying the stereotypes. You know, the stereotypes that have been defied thousands of times since the start of the feminist movement.

The problem with the term "strong female character" is that some people interpret the "strong" is "well-made" as in an compelling character that you can empathize with (not necessarily sympathize and want to succeed but empathize and understand), but other people interpret the "strong" as being more like physical strength and the sorts of things that would come to mind if you called a real person strong.

I hate that everyone is expected to be strong all the time, both in real life and in fiction. This is one of my soapboxes that I step onto a lot. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and I hate that people aren't allowed to show their weaknesses except in certain, limited acceptable ways. I hate that some strengths are treated as superior to others. That some are treated as though they cancel out weaknesses while other, particularly ones that are considered more feminine, aren't given the same kind of praise.

Basically, I think there is a very real problem that the whole "men with boobs" complaint is trying to address, but I think it's going about it in the wrong way.

[inkdust]

This is on point.

[splinteredstar]

There's one line in a Discworld novel (Feet of Clay, which I just finished rereading and love a lot) where one female police officer says to another who is new in the department, "You can be any sex you like in the Watch, as long as you act like one of the lads."

A lot of people still operate under a male-based power system. Power means masculinity means appropriate behavior. A woman acting like a man is grudgingly tolerated, as someone who is at least trying to rise above the natural weakness. Whereas acting feminine (In any form, though normally means "showing any emotion or caring about other humans beings whatsoever") is weakness and thus derided as worthless.

Because it's not strength unless someone gets punched in the face with it, and if you're not strong you don't deserve to exist.

[serria]

I don't think that's what the author in the interview I mentioned was referring to, but I definitely get this definition. Though I kind of scoff at anyone, feminist or misogynist alike, who claims that certain traits or details are "feminine" or "masculine" - like, if female character A doesn't wear dresses she is hating on everything that makes up womanhood or something. But I understand some validity in the argument, too. Whether I like it or not, there are things that stereotypically define women, or at least are associated with them - and these traits are often considered weak or inferior, or just... feminine. If a character embraces stereotypically masculine things and despises stereotypically feminine things, that could - and might - have a message about gender roles.

And, as I think you're saying, there really isn't anything inherently revolutionary about the badass woman trope, because she does masculine things. Though I feel like, to be honest, most of these characters are rarely totally "masculine" and don't necessarily escape femininity - they often still fall into negative female tropes, like having to be saved, being hopelessly in love, etc. I don't feel most "badass woman" characters are necessarily all that "masculine."

But I agree passionately with your point about strength, too. There's nothing wrong with, say, a female character needing to be saved - it's just a bit of a stereotype. But a character, male or female, who is strong all the time just isn't realistic. Or particularly likeable, in my opinion. I think the important thing is that a character is authentic and real, and the author tries his or her best to treat them like genuine people. And there are many types of strengths, after all. Even in the fantasy genre, strength shouldn't really be reduced to ability to kill people with a sword. We need to expand our definition of strength, I think.

"Men with boobs" just seems dangerously apt to fall into grounds of simplifying what traits are acceptable for women and men, either from a feminist's perspective or a misogynist's. But I think the argument you've presented is an important one, too. Bearing in mind the reality of society more or less accepting that strong women act, dress and behave in a more "masculine" way, but if a man does the opposite, we see that femininity is still characterized as weak, disgusting and undesirable.

[sarillia]

Yeah my argument probably isn't the only one that the "men with boobs" thing is meant to address. Some people really believe in a strict binary where women are x and men are y and that's the end of it.

I realized I forgot to address your problem with your own writing. I think it goes back to what we've talked about before. There should be lots of female characters with lots of different personalities who are all treated with respect. It's harder to claim that you're making a statement about women when you do that.

But I think every writer who is writing for an audience needs to accept that there will be people coming up with theories that you disagree with. That's just how it goes.